Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: stateless with no key required, nothing stored, no notice sent or lien filed, review_required semantics for uncovered states, 'blanket review flag is not accepted', and pre-flight validation that errors name the field before any API call. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling routing rule, and every sentence carries content. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, and a few parameter-dependency sentences duplicate schema descriptions, but there is little pure padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the return JSON in detail (overall status, per-deadline statuses, critical_warnings, statute_citations, echoed inputs, disclaimer). For an 11-parameter, state-conditional tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-field meanings are already documented, but the description adds cross-parameter dependencies the schema states only in isolation: last_delivery_date required when deliveries_complete is true, which states accept which conditional questions, that FL/KS-only params are rejected for other states, and a Florida event date being accepted only with the matching 'yes' answer. It stops short of restating individual field formats, which the schema already handles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource ('Calculates a construction material supplier's preliminary notice and lien filing deadlines') and scopes the input to delivery events. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_state_lien_guide, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use it whenever the user needs dates; use get_state_lien_guide to explain the rules behind them.' It also sets expectations for unsupported jurisdictions ('other states and public projects return review_required, which is an answer, not an error') and instructs the agent to ask for missing facts rather than guess.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.